I'm not against Seattle getting an NHL franchise... In fact, I think it's loooong overdue. The American northwest should've had a team 25 years ago. They should get a team as soon as something is in place for a new arena.

That being said, Quebec City is the best choice for the NHL in the immediate future. But Seattle isn't too far off.

I still think it's a travesty that Stern let the Supersonics march out of town, though...

One reason why Vancouver needs an MLB team of their own (not to change the subject)...having your favorite team being 2500 miles away, when there one just around the corner from you looks.....funny. Not that it's a crime, but it looks weird.
However, while it's not rabid, the Mariners do have some support in Vancouver.

I'm not against Seattle getting an NHL franchise... In fact, I think it's loooong overdue. The American northwest should've had a team 25 years ago. They should get a team as soon as something is in place for a new arena.

That being said, Quebec City is the best choice for the NHL in the immediate future. But Seattle isn't too far off.

I still think it's a travesty that Stern let the Supersonics march out of town, though...

agreed. QC will bring money and the NHL needs that right now. I am guessing at least 50 million gone from Project Glendale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beenhereandthere

One reason why Vancouver needs an MLB team of their own (not to change the subject)...having your favorite team being 2500 miles away, when there one just around the corner from you looks.....funny.
However, while it's not rabid, the Mariners do have some support in Vancouver.

It's kinda ridiculous but it is just a game after all. People can cheer for whomever.

Average Canucks Attendance by year:
1996/97: 17,320 (8th in the nhl)
1997/98: 16,986 (9th in the nhl)
1998/99: 15,803 (22nd in the nhl)
1999/00: 14,642 (23rd in the nhl)
2000/01: 17,017 (15th in the nhl)

It's interesting to note that the dip in attendance coincides almost exactly with the existence of the Vancouver Grizzlies (1995/2001). No doubt some hockey fans got tired of the atrocious on-ice product and spent their money to see the novelty of the NBA instead.

The problem with a team in Seattle is that the nhl would have to compete with three teams that already had an established fanbase...

It's interesting to note that the dip in attendance coincides almost exactly with the existence of the Vancouver Grizzlies (1995/2001). No doubt some hockey fans got tired of the atrocious on-ice product and spent their money to see the novelty of the NBA instead.

The problem with a team in Seattle is that the nhl would have to compete with three teams that already had an established fanbase...

I count five:

Seahawks
Mariners
Sounders
Huskies
NBA team (I know you said established, but presumably Seattle would immediately embrace the repatriated Sonics)

Perhaps if Vancouver had nearly twice its population (like Montreal has) or more than twice its population had (like Toronto has) it would have been able to sell the 3,000-4,000 more seats a game required to sell out during its worst era.

We regularly read around here that the smaller size of Canadian cities doesn't mean much because Canadians truly support hockey, so places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, hell even Saskatoon, are declared big enough to support the NHL without a problem. But here we have CpatainCanuck using the opposite argument, saying that Vancouver could've supported better the Canucks in it worst era if only the population of the city were greater.

We regularly read around here that the smaller size of Canadian cities doesn't mean much because Canadians truly support hockey, so places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, hell even Saskatoon, are declared big enough to support the NHL without a problem. But here we have CpatainCanuck using the opposite argument, saying that Vancouver could've supported the Canucks in it worst era if only the population of the city were greater.

Sorry man, I just had to say it.

There are many factors that determine the revenue of a sports team, and the viability of placing a team in a new city.

Population
The Economy
Existing Fans of the Sport
Local Competition
The Quality of the On-Ice Product

Are among the most important factors. The fact that arguments can be made for placing an nhl team in both a smaller Canadian City (like Quebec) and a Bigger American one (like Seattle) is not a contradiction. It is recognition that potential viability of a franchise is a complex issue.

Some fans in Canada and the United States simply want to have more teams in their countries for whatever reason. I don't consider myself one of those fans: having a team in Quebec City does me little good. I happen to think however that a team in Quebec City would be more viable than a team in Seattle.

I fail to see what you are "sorry you had to say". If that was a trolling attempt you need more practice.

We regularly read around here that the smaller size of Canadian cities doesn't mean much because Canadians truly support hockey, so places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, hell even Saskatoon, are declared big enough to support the NHL without a problem. But here we have CpatainCanuck using the opposite argument, saying that Vancouver could've supported the Canucks in it worst era if only the population of the city were greater.

What are you clapping about? The local support for the Blackhawks during most of the 2000s was worse than Vancouver's support of the canucks during the late 90s...and Chicago has nearly 5 times as many people as Vancouver does.

We regularly read around here that the smaller size of Canadian cities doesn't mean much because Canadians truly support hockey, so places like Winnipeg, Quebec City, hell even Saskatoon, are declared big enough to support the NHL without a problem. But here we have CpatainCanuck using the opposite argument, saying that Vancouver could've supported better the Canucks in it worst era if only the population of the city were greater.

Sorry man, I just had to say it.

Word!!! I thought that smaller was better? Seems that some people are trying to have it both ways.

What are you clapping about? The local support for the Blackhawks during most of the 2000s was worse than Vancouver's support of the canucks during the late 90s...and Chicago has nearly 5 times as many people as Vancouver does.

But that is Vancouver only major team. Chicago was named best sports city in NA at least once in the 2000s. Besides Vancouver never had any blackouts.

A question: has anyone who is from Seattle posted in this thread? It appears -- not just from this thread, but in general -- the biggest advocates of a team in Seattle tend to be from Vancouver, BC. Wouldn't it be great for them to be able to see an NHL game on their visits to Seattle?

A question: has anyone who is from Seattle posted in this thread? It appears -- not just from this thread, but in general -- the biggest advocates of a team in Seattle tend to be from Vancouver, BC. Wouldn't it be great for them to be able to see an NHL game on their visits to Seattle?

People in Seattle dont really care about the NHL... no one post here. Seattle will become Columbus #2

What are you clapping about? The local support for the Blackhawks during most of the 2000s was worse than Vancouver's support of the canucks during the late 90s...and Chicago has nearly 5 times as many people as Vancouver does.

Dude, I'm not making fun of Vancouver. I think you are taking what MoreOrr said in reverse of what he meant. It wasn't directed AT you, it was directed at the greater Canada who think that places like Saskatoon can succeed because it's IN CANADA!

People in Seattle dont really care about the NHL... no one post here. Seattle will become Columbus #2

To be fair, Seattle arguably has better potential than Columbus due mainly to the larger corporate sector. On the other hand, Columbus only has the NHL and Seattle would have all 4 "major sports" if the NBA returned also.

Seattle would also benefit a little by its proximity to Canada. Canadians would show up for games.

However, I agree with you. The NHL is not big in Seattle at all. To give you one example, I know the local NBC affiliate has in the past not shown NHL games if there was something more popular they could televise. Proximity to Canada and the existence of a few WHL teams in the area does not make Seattle a hockey city.

Dude, I'm not making fun of Vancouver. I think you are taking what MoreOrr said in reverse of what he meant. It wasn't directed AT you, it was directed at the greater Canada who think that places like Saskatoon can succeed because it's IN CANADA!

Saskatoon is obviously an unrealistic option. However it has been evident so far that Winnipeg is supporting its franchise much better than a lot of bigger American cities are. That will lesson once the honeymoon stage is over, but still there is a waiting list for seasons tickets that should fill the stadium for many years to come. The reason for its success is because, like almost all Canadian cities, it has a very large proportion of hockey fans.

To be fair, Seattle arguably has better potential than Columbus due mainly to the larger corporate sector. On the other hand, Columbus only has the NHL and Seattle would have all 4 "major sports" if the NBA returned also.

Seattle would also benefit a little by its proximity to Canada. Canadians would show up for games.

However, I agree with you. The NHL is not big in Seattle at all. To give you one example, I know the local NBC affiliate has in the past not shown NHL games if there was something more popular they could televise. Proximity to Canada and the existence of a few WHL teams in the area does not make Seattle a hockey city.

Rethink the last sentence. While the Canucks may have had a lot to do with this...the US TV Market that had the highest ratings outside of New England for the SC finals last year? Seattle.
The local NBC affiliate, has bumped games from their main station (KING) to their "secondary" station (KONG), but that doesn't mean the game was not shown locally on local channels.

Dude, I'm not making fun of Vancouver. I think you are taking what MoreOrr said in reverse of what he meant. It wasn't directed AT you, it was directed at the greater Canada who think that places like Saskatoon can succeed because it's IN CANADA!

Yes, the post wasn't directed specifically at CpatainCanuck, but specifically at the contradiction in thinking between his post and that of many Canadian posters in regards to smaller Canadian cities being able to support an NHL team without that relative smaller population size causing problems, especially when economic times are tough or when the team has been struggling for a long stretch of time.

To be fair, Seattle arguably has better potential than Columbus due mainly to the larger corporate sector. On the other hand, Columbus only has the NHL and Seattle would have all 4 "major sports" if the NBA returned also.

Seattle would also benefit a little by its proximity to Canada. Canadians would show up for games.

However, I agree with you. The NHL is not big in Seattle at all. To give you one example, I know the local NBC affiliate has in the past not shown NHL games if there was something more popular they could televise. Proximity to Canada and the existence of a few WHL teams in the area does not make Seattle a hockey city.

I can't agree with Seattle having a better potential to support an NHL team than Columbus. For that matter though, Columbus is only now having difficulties because of such a long stretch of on-ice futility. If Seattle were to endure a similar on-ice fate with an NHL team there, then it could turn out just as problematic. But there aren't a lot of cities currently in the League that wouldn't encounter the same problem if under the same conditions.

On the topic of "what would become of the Thunderbirds?", I'd be interested to see that answer. Personally, I look at both the Seahawks and Mariners as having some shade of green and blue in their scheme already...would a Seattle NHL team do the same?

For those who have never seen a Thunderbirds jersey, it's one of a very small number of crests that actually has chain-stitching on the logo. It's a very nice touch on a great-looking uniform.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patofqc

People in Seattle dont really care about the NHL... no one post here. Seattle will become Columbus #2

And that means what exactly? Columbus doesn't have an MLB or NFL team, nor is there any real hope for an NBA team. Seattle is also about 3 times the size of Columbus.

Or did you mean in terms of posting here, which means something? Well, let's see here...I see Columbus in the top-five in the Western Conference (most in the Central Division), with substantially more than Detroit, Minnesota, Calgary, Colorado...

I'm from seattle area but been mostly reading the thread until now. I would be thrilled to see Seattle get a team assuming they get their new arena built.

I just want to give my 2 cents through here. I think both Seattle and QC deserve a team. It just depends on what the league wants to do especially when it comes to league alignment or possible future expansions.

There is one thing i would like to point out regarding Seattle as a pro sport market. Seattle is the only imo US major sports market within the pacific northwest and Alaska.

A lot of people that live out the Seattle market especially those that are out of state in the NW (Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Oregon for some sports) view Seattle as their pro team. So a NHL team coming to Seattle would huge for the league in merchandise sales especially those that live on the east side of the state or live out of state.

Not many regions within the US are so fortunately to be within distance of so many pro sport franchises.